On 26/08/07, Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/25/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I believe the only reasonable solution is to promote the use of > > package managers, and to let go of the "batteries included" philosophy > > It's important to realize that most operating systems (Windows, OS X) > don't really support the use of package managers. [...] > Even with package managers, installing an external extension is out of > bounds for most users. [...] > So as soon as you require an install of something, you lose 80% of your > potential users.
These are very good points, and fit exactly with my experience. For my personal use, I happily install and use any package that helps. For deployment, however, I very rarely contemplate relying on anything other than "the essentials" (to me, that covers Python, pywin32, and cx_Oracle - they get installed by default on any of our systems). > Though I agree with some of your other points, those about the > fast-moving unstable frameworks, and about the packages that depend on > an external non-Python non-standard resource. Definitely. I think the whole issue of inclusion in the standard library is a delicate balance - but one which Python has so far got just about right. I'd like to see that continue. The improvements in PyPI, and the rise of setuptools and eggs, are great, but shouldn't in themselves be a reason to slim down the standard library. Paul. _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
